Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, before my colleague, the gentleman from Cleveland, OH [Mr. Hoke] leaves, I appreciate his comments about governmental default. I would just offer the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] the opportunity to come down here in the well and join over 150 Members.

Mr. DOGGETT. No, I will not yield. Mr. Speaker, we do not need any more of this crybaby nonsense around here. The question that I was asking the gentleman from Ohio is, that in the event that he feels, and I do commend him for his comments on default, he feels as strongly about it as he said, then I would ask him to come down and join the over 150 Members of this House who have already signed on a discharge petition so that today, if we could get a few more signatures, we could vote to avoid this problem of default and go ahead and resolve the debt limit right now. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman wishes to respond to that, I would be glad to yield to him briefly to do that.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, as so many Texans gathered yesterday in Austin to honor Senator Ralph Yarborough, I was reminded of his urging that we ought to put the jam on the lower shelf so the little people can reach it. How appropriate those words are this morning. Speaker Gingrich wants to put all the jam up there on the top shelf so that those who are sitting comfortably on the top ladder can reach up there and get the tax breaks and the crown jewels. Those that are down there on the bottom rung, working families, they reach into the cupboard and they find it bare. All they get is a notice for raised taxes under this Republican economic plan. Mr. Speaker, meanwhile the Speaker is talking about getting this country into a jam of a far different type: Defaulting on the full faith and credit of the United States of America, the kind of idea we would have only heard on the crackpot circuit a year ago. Well, it is time to stop jeopardizing with these political shenanigans the future of working families across America.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Well, I think they are. I know that in my hometown of Austin, TX, the newspaper editorialized just within the last week under the title, ``House Republicans Get Burned.'' They said, ``Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives, like hardheaded children, had to learn the hard way this week that there are serious consequences for serious misbehavior. They have been playing with fire for months now, threatening to allow the Nation to go into default in order to accomplish political objections. This week they danced too close to the flames and got burned by refusing to compromise with President Clinton on a temporary extension of the country's debt limit. The House Republicans placed the Credit of the entire country in jeopardy. ``It is foolish,'' this newspaper says, In the extreme, for a small group of representatives with only a year in office to threaten financial default as a political strategy. That gambit had ``loser'' written all over it since last fall, but new Members, so blinded by narrow ideology, just could not see it. It seems to me that comment from deep in the heart of Texas is exactly the kind of viewpoint that you are hearing from your neighbors up in New England.

Mr. DOGGETT. Very well put. I thank the gentlewoman for participating. Let us address the question of this Nation's creditworthiness this week and not jeopardize it further.

Mr. DOGGETT. The gentlewoman will remember that in December we got within hours of a delay or stoppage in benefits for our veterans, and only because the gentlewoman and others of us took to the floor to emphasize the disaster that would occur if this shutdown continued were we able to get legislation enacted within less than a day of the time that, had it not been enacted, those benefits would not have been there when the people needed them.

Mr. DOGGETT. And how truly ironic that this is happening at a time when Vice President Gore has done such a wonderful job with the reinventing Government initiative, when this administration has actually brought down the size of the Federal work force, when we have some really creative efforts underway to try to ensure that the American taxpayer gets a full dollar's worth from Government, that Government works more efficiently, that we search out those departments that are not doing their job and change things there. Instead of working to see that our Government that is essential works better, we end up with this hurry up and stop kind of government that cannot help but destroy employee morale, make for greater inefficiency. I am sure that your office, like mine, is frequently involved with working with citizens that have a problem on a Social Security check or a veteran's benefit or a problem with some other Federal agency where we are trying to assist the citizen in working with their Government, and it is difficult to get timely responses for citizens from agencies that are closed one day and starting up the next and not knowing whether they are going to be there the following month.

Mr. DOGGETT. Well, certainly they are concerned about the impact, and particularly as responsible officials, they would be run out of town with the accountants defaulting on the local obligations of the school district or the city or the county hospital or the like. The very notion that just because the U.S. Government is bigger and the egos of some of the people involved in it are bigger still, that we could countenance the default on our obligations, it mystifies most of the people that I visit with. The Hartford editorial to which you referred seems to me to imply something else that is very significant, that while we have until perhaps March 1, the estimated time of actual default, that given all of the world pressures, the way people in Japan that hold our debt or in some other part of the world get skittish about a rumor they hear, we do not know from one day to the next what the consequence of this political irresponsibility might be, but we do know it is not going to be good.

Mr. DOGGETT. Sometimes you get the impression that it is almost un- American to work toward common ground, to try to resolve differences, to have some give and take, to realize that there is no party that has a monopoly on truth. There are insights we both have to offer, and that we could work together surely to protect the full faith and credit of the United States. Surely, as is the case with your veterans, workers there in Connecticut, I had the same experience in Austin, TX. Some of our Veterans' Administration employees were there working without pay; others, denied the opportunity to work, were actually in the process back in December of developing a food bank, not for people outside of the Veterans' Administration, but just so there would be food at Christmastime and before Christmastime for those who serve the men and women who risk all in order to protect this country. The whole notion that we could be here even today debating whether or not we would risk the full faith and credit of the United States about whether or not people that serve our veterans, whether it is in Connecticut or in Texas or anywhere else, might be facing another situation where they are worried about having a food bank instead of serving our veterans, would be, you know, it would--it just sounded like another crackpot idea. But now crackpotism seems to be in up here.

Mr. DOGGETT. Surely in a Nation as great as these United States, we ought to be able to achieve the objectives that the gentlewoman has so eloquently described to protect the retirement security and the health care security of those who have served our country and been our strong citizens and to provide opportunity to our younger citizens so that they might have an even better tomorrow. That is what is being dashed in this budget debate in order to give more tax breaks and loopholes to those at the top of the economic ladder; it is to sacrifice the great American middle class, and those struggling to get into it, that these budget priorities are providing. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman referred a few months ago to this whole question of leadership and the fact that the leaders ought to get out of the way of, really, the will of this body. I know the gentlewoman is acquainted with a number of Republican Members of this body who would like to be responsible. In fact, I think if tomorrow morning, when we come in here, we had a provision to make the adjustment in the debt limit in order to assure the full faith and credit of this country, and we did not have Speaker Gingrich twisting arms and the whip whipping them over there and threatening not to show up at fundraisers and doing all of the other silly things that have occurred over the last few months, there are Republican Members of this body who would join with a near-unanimous Democratic caucus, and tomorrow morning, we would not risk the full faith and credit of this country; we would protect it with a bipartisan vote. But we cannot seem to get the leaders out of the way. The leaders continue to block and obstruct and pressure and cajole their caucus to avoid dealing with this problem until we get right up to the cliff and are almost ready to be pushed over by this kind of kamikaze mentality, that we can risk anything in order to accomplish political objectives.

Mr. DOGGETT. Absolutely. And I appreciate very much the gentleman's insight on this issue this afternoon. This is not a time that the American people are demanding more tax breaks and loopholes in our Tax Code. They are demanding equity. They would like for us to move forward. The President of the United States came here to this very body last week. He was conciliatory. He asked for a bipartisan effort. He recognized that neither party has a monopoly on wisdom, and asked us to work together to solve the problems of this country. But the first thing he indicated was in doing that, let us not have any more of these silly crybaby shutdowns of the Government. Let us not threaten the full faith and credit of this country. And the reaction, as the gentleman from Hawaii has pointed out, of the Speaker of the House is nothing short of bizarre. At a time when the President comes and says, ``Let us work together,'' and everyone smiles and claps and says, ``Yes, let us do it,'' and the President says ``Yes, I will agree to a 7-year balanced budget; we will even let your people calculate the numbers, using your numbers to get the 7 years,'' and as soon as he does that they begin to back away from the whole notion of a balanced budget and saying, ``We want not a balanced budget; what we have in mind, instead of bringing the deficit down, is to have a downpayment.'' What kind of a downpayment is it that they propose? A key element of this downpayment is not bringing the budget deficit down, but increasing it by having an election year, or election eve, actually, tax break announced. I know that is troubling to the gentlewoman from Connecticut as well.

Mr. DOGGETT. Certainly.

Mr. DOGGETT. The problem was, as the gentleman will remember, that more than anything else, he did not like the fact that the President of the United States absolutely refused to join him in his determination to let Medicare wither on the vine. And when the President said, ``No, I do not want Medicare to wither on the vine,'' as the Speaker had committed, as Senator Dole, who said he was so proud to have voted against Medicare when it was created in 1965, then they started talking about entitlements, and what they really meant was they were entitled to a crown jewel of tax breaks for those at the top of the economic ladder. They had to savage Medicare in order to do it. And if they could not get that, they really kind of lost their interest in a balanced budget.

Mr. DOGGETT. Unequivocally, and then let these credit issues, many of which are important, some on which you and I agree with our Republican colleagues on and some we disagree on, let us get those disputes resolved in the appropriate manner, rather than risk the creditworthiness of every citizen of this country.

Mr. DOGGETT. Of course, Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman referred to partisanship. There is nothing partisan about the fact that six or seven prior Secretaries of the U.S. Treasury, Republicans and Democrats, have basically said, ``Don't do this. This is too important to play political games. Do what is right for the future of this country,'' a concern that I know is shared by my colleague, the gentleman from Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, indeed, there is in this country for individuals a whole credit counseling profession; that is, a group of individuals trained in counseling people about their credit needs. But there is no credit counselor available for a nation as large as the United States which for the first time in its history, through various political shenanigans, would default on its obligations. I know the gentlewoman referenced the action of Moody's. The reaction of one banker to Moody's comment that it would be placing this Nation on a credit watch, potentially, was the whole notion that U.S. bonds are on some kind of credit watch is wild. This is the kind of thing that happens to some companies, not to the United States. It is embarrassing, and it is embarrassing that a few people who call themselves leaders would countenance jeopardizing the full faith and credit of the greatest Nation in the world by doing this kind of thing, is it not?

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, we now approach a time within only a very few weeks when for the first time in over two centuries of this country, the full faith and credit of the United States of America is being placed in dire risk. The creditworthiness of this country, to an extent the creditworthiness of all of us as American citizens, is being put on the line. Is this for some lofty purpose or for some deep political principle? No, not at all. Only to gain some momentary advantage are our Republican colleagues willing to push this Nation right to the brink of financial disaster by trying to use the adjustment of the limits of this country's creditworthiness, that everyone agrees is essential, that Republican colleagues have already voted to extend in another format in a previous occasion, in fact more than one previous occasion. But now that it is time to adjust the limit and protect the creditworthiness of every American citizen acting through their Government, they want to use that device as leverage to put into effect some of the provisions that they cannot pass and enact in this Congress through ordinary democratic means to get adjustment and get a little leverage and use a crowbar to adjust and get the political ends that they think are necessary, rather than to let the democratic process work and rather than protect the creditworthiness and full faith and credit of this country. I read with some alarm in the news of this afternoon that only this morning at a forum the respected Chair of the House Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] says we need something to get our House Republican Members to vote for the debt ceiling that they would not otherwise vote for. I assume from those remarks that just merely protecting the full faith and credit of the United States is not sufficient reason. The mere prospect of this country defaulting on its obligations, obligations that all of us as American citizens have undertaken, that is not enough to get them to vote to extend and adjust this ceiling. Mr. Speaker, he added that there would be no debt ceiling bill that will not have some additional matters attached to it. He indicated in the same speech that it was his objective to place in that debt ceiling bill the revisions in the capital gains tax that have been referred to along with other provisions in the contract on America as the crown jewel of the contract. That is basically the program in which our Republican colleagues begin a transfer of wealth in the country by reducing the taxes on those at the top of the economic ladder and by increasing the taxes on those at the bottom of the economic ladder, a strange approach but one surely designed to widen the gap that already exists between rich and poor in this country. Mr. Speaker, I do not know what it is about those colleagues. I have nothing against people down at the country club enjoying their tax breaks, but I hate to see them lonely down there. I hate to see many Americans only have a chance to get to the country club if they are there to sweep the floor or mow the lawn. Why not assure every citizen an opportunity to share in the American economic dream instead of providing all of the tax benefits to those at the top and raising taxes on those at the bottom? But that is the logic of the Republican contract on America, a contract provision that they cannot get approved through ordinary democratic means. So apparently they are willing to risk a default on the obligations of the United States of America for the first time in its history just in order to force this adjustment in the tax rate and accomplish the crown jewel, as they refer to it, in the contract on America. I think that would be a very serious mistake, to get right up to the brink of disaster without adjusting the obligations to protect our creditworthiness. The other aspect of this work is what we see here this afternoon, and that is a House working not on full throttle but barely turning on the ignition. This is a House that in recent months, every time it has approached a crisis, whether a manufactured crisis by the Speaker such as the ``Cry Baby'' shutdown or the Christmas Eve shutdown that we had of Government. Mr. Speaker, every time they approach the crisis in America, the solution is to treat work in this Congress as if it were not only a four-letter word but a dirty four-letter word. Instead, the word that has become honored in this Congress is another four letter word, the word ``quit.'' Every time we approach a crisis, whether it is a shutdown or now the possibility of governmental default on our obligations, the solution is to condemn work. The idea that we would stay here like Americans are working across this country today and really work and labor to solve the problems that we face in a bipartisan basis, rather, the approach is to quit. So the approach this week is to work just a little bit and then quit on Thursday afternoon, deferring apparently until February 26, just up and quit during that time and wait until approximately 5 or 6 days before we enter complete default so that they can at the last minute, in true brinkmanship fashion come forward with a debt limit bill that contains things like the capital gains tax cut for those at the top of the economic ladder, perhaps whatever other approach might be necessary in order to bring together not this House, but just the Republican Members of this House to support an adjustment they have already voted for that is essential to protecting the economic security of this country. That kind of brinksmanship, rather than bipartisanship, is what has brought this House to the state that it is in today and produced the risks that this Nation faces of fiscal disaster. What does the possibility of a default really mean to ordinary American citizens? Why, they are talking about it on Wall Street. The political commentators discuss it. But what does it really mean to the ordinary American family that is just out there trying to hear a little through all the static that they hear about what is going on in Washington about who is ahead of whom and who is doing what to whom and who is complaining about this, what does it mean? Mr. Speaker, it has far-reaching implications for every American citizen who has a variable rate mortgage; for every American who has a balance on their credit card; for every American citizen who has a car loan or the possibility of a car loan in the future. They have a stake in what is happening here in Washington. Indeed any American citizen who ever plans to borrow money in the future has a stake in what is happening, because the effect of the United States defaulting on interest rates in this country could be very significant indeed. What about those who are in such good shape that they are going to benefit from these tax breaks that are being proposed and are not borrowing money? Well, yes, they, to the extent they pay any taxes, have a stake in this whole issue of governmental default. If this occurs, it will be no different than the neighbor or the relative that each of us knows who abused their credit rating; who ran up big bills on their charge cards and did not pay them, who perhaps did not pay them because they lost a job or they went through domestic problems, and they did not get those bills paid. Now there is a big black mark in someone's computer against that individual. Well, the same thing can and has happened to nations in this world. Ours has never been one of them. We have stood by our obligations in the past 220-plus years that this Nation has existed. But once we permit a default to occur and have that on our Nation's credit rating, every single one of us who pays taxes in this country will be paying more taxes to cover the higher borrowing costs that this Nation will incur if we end up with a governmental default. So, Mr. Speaker, we have very high stakes indeed. Yet, instead of dealing with this question of default, Members of this House plan to head back home and leave the matters to work out however they might. They plan to wait until just a very few days in the last week of February before default will actually occur to do anything about it and hope that perhaps in the dead of night they can force over on to the President's desk some bill with a Christmas tree of goodies for special interests and those at the top of the economic ladder and force him to sign that bill. A sorry state of affairs, indeed. We also face, along with this question of default, the question of how the Government will handle its business with reference to the continuation of governmental operations. We have already had two governmental shutdowns, cost the American taxpayer a billion and a half dollars, a billion and a half dollars added to the national deficit, unless they plan to raise taxes or do something else to cover the cost of this waste, a billion and a half dollars that should never have been incurred. And now we have a continuation of the operations of the Government not through the rest of this fiscal year but only until March 15. Who knows that is to occur on March 15? Indeed, that ``who knows what is to occur'' is really what the problem is, because it is impossible for many agencies to plan out and operate their functions of Government and deliver the services that all of us depend on in varying degree, if they cannot plan for more than a month or 6 weeks at a time. We have had a kind of hurry-up-and-stop Government since early last fall, where the personnel at these Federal agencies, the directors at these agencies do not know whether they are going to be on the job from 1 week or 1 month to the next. Under the decision of this House last week, that is exactly what we have now. Let me just give you one example of why that makes a significant difference to ordinary American working families who are out there trying to make ends meet and provide enough encouragement to a child in their family to get them through school, to get them through high school and get that diploma and have an opportunity to go on for some type of advanced degree, perhaps go to college, perhaps get a good technical degree, whatever the choice might be, hopefully to get them all of the education that they need and can use. What impact does this hurry-up-and-stop type of Government have on our educational system? Well, of course, we are dealing with an educational system that is already facing severe cuts under this Republican budget, a budget made necessary and cuts in education made necessary because of the desire of the Republican leadership here in the House, the Speaker, to provide tax breaks to those at the top of the economic ladder and to give to the Defense Department not just what it asked for but $7 billion more than it asked for this year. With that kind of approach, education already has obstacles, already has cuts, but what it has now is not the pursuit of knowledge for American families and American young people but a lack of that knowledge, the lack of knowledge as to what will happen after March 15, what will happen for the rest of this year. We are at that point in the college year, I remember how it affected my family, when my daughters were looking for those college notices that are coming out or being issued by colleges and universities around the country at this time of the year. They sit there and they wait, after they have spent all the effort, they have sent in the application fees. They have filled out the applications. They have gotten the reference letters from teachers and from individuals for whom they have worked or that have knowledge of their abilities. And they are waiting, hoping that that envelope will come and will say that they have been accepted to the college or the university of their choice. But now the question is not simply did I get in but will I be able to afford to go, because the effect of the hurry-up-and-stop Newt Gingrich approach to our Government this year is that the Department of Education is unable to fulfill its responsibilities to outline what kind of Federal financial assistance is going to be available for students. Many financial assistance officers at colleges and universities across this country, I have talked, for example, with the officer at the University of Texas in my home town of Austin, with Austin Community College, which has many students that rely on Federal financial assistance. They cannot get the information they need to do their job to provide the student and the student's family the information they need to know whether that educational assistance is going to be available. Some students may well have to decide to not go on and get the education they need because they do not think the financial assistance will be there. Those who talk about our future, who talk about relieving debt from our children in the future, as well we should do, ought to be worried about the kind of future we will have in America, if we have a future in which we deny our young people the opportunity to get the education that they want and can absorb, if they place one obstacle after another in front of young people in this country. What kind of future is this country going to have, if we do not have the educated work force to be able to compete with our economic competitors across the country and how fulfilling a life will many of these young people have, if they do not have the opportunity to get the education that they want and deserve simply because of some kind of political brinkmanship in this House and in this Congress that believes in hurry-up-and-stop Government, that refuses to provide the support for education that we need, the same kind of brinkmanship that risks default in our obligations come the end of February because someone wants to hijack and crowbar the President and load on things like the crown jewel of the contract, rather than tend to business, rather than work and address the affairs of this country? Mr. Speaker, I see the gentlewoman from Connecticut has arrived, who has been such a leader in the effort both for support of education and to prevent our Nation from having the first default in its history. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, as this Congress convenes today in Washington, many Texans are convened in Austin, TX, to celebrate the life of Ralph W. Yarborough. Senator Yarborough, Judge Yarborough, Assistant Attorney General Yarborough, a man originally from Chandler, TX, but a man now claimed by people across our great State, is one who contributed significantly to the lives of those of us who live now in Texas. Senator Yarborough was the only southern Senator to support the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Just as the great Senator and general, Sam Houston, once cut across the grain of popular opinion in Texas when the question was union in the 1860's, so Senator Yarborough had the courage to cut across the grain of popular opinion at the time and do what was best for the future of our State by standing up for civil rights. Senator Yarborough is a person who served our State with incredible tenacity and incredible courage. Many Texans now will perhaps not remember his service when they take an excursion to the Guadalupe Mountains National Park, when they visit Padre Island National Seashore, when as a veteran they benefit from his work on the GI bill of rights that extended education services for veterans. But his mark is there, an immense mark with reference to legislation. I think more than any particular legislative act, those of us who continue to participate in public service in Texas will remember the role that Ralph Yarborough made in public service in our State, in every branch of government. We remember that Ralph Yarborough symbolized concern for people, but he recognized that those who submit themselves for public service need not began by taking a poll but by trying to lead public opinion and mold it, not just to react to it. Senator Yarborough was a leader in the true sense, a genuine public servant. We are fortunate that he came our way. There are those, of course, who refer to him as a firebrand, but when I visited with him, I always found that the fire that burned was a fire of justice, one who responded consistently when injustice affected the people of our State. We thank you, Senator Yarborough, for a life well lived, and a State well served. You have served well not only those of us in Texas while you were in the Senate, but have benefited generations of Texans to come.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would continue to yield, I heard the Speaker of the House, who will have extraordinary power, announce last night on national television that his effort to dismantle Medicare this year has failed and that he is giving up on it. What I do not understand is why he is walking away from a balanced budget as well. He talks about some minimal down payment at a time we ought to be bringing the whole budget deficit down without bringing Medicare down with it. Is that not involved centrally, and the reason they want to walk out of town rather than debate what this is all really about?

Mr. DOGGETT. They may well take us, in the month of February, right to brink of fiscal disaster, to default on this Government's full faith and credit. And when they get there to the cliff, if they mishandle this whole issue of Government default the way they have mishandled the governance in this House for the last year where they have accomplished so little after expending so much time here on the floor of this House, then we may actually fall into default.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I would just conclude by noting the reaction of one person, an investment banker, to note what may happen if they carry us over the cliff, but what already happened yesterday in taking us right up to the brink of disaster as this Gingrich-led Congress has done at a time when the President has come here and called for conciliation and goodwill and cooperation. Instead of doing that, they take us up to the edge of the cliff of financial disaster. The reaction of one investment banker was that this is a very strong warning to the system. The whole notion that the U.S. bonds are on some kind of credit watch is wild. This is the kind of things that happens to some of our companies, not to the United States. It is embarrassing. And it is an embarrassment, but it is an embarrassment we are going to have to pay for. In Texas, there are a lot of stickers and signs around that say, ``Don't mess with Texas.'' We are saying today, Don't mess with the credit rating of Texas and these United States. If these Republican colleagues want to go mess up somebody's credit rating, go mess up their own. Do not mess with my credit rating. I have worked to defend and preserve it. And that is what the American people should be saying to this Gingrichite leadership: Do not mess with our credit rating. We worked hard to preserve it, and you ought not to use these crazy, extremist political tactics to destroy the credit rating the generations of Americans have preserved.

Mr. DOGGETT. Would the gentlewoman yield for a question there?

Mr. DOGGETT. I have known people that have gotten a bad credit rating, they maybe have lost a job, gotten behind on their bills, or maybe they just borrowed too much.

Mr. DOGGETT. If the gentlewoman would yield, just one question about that point. These are also the same Republican leaders who for decades have presented themselves to the American people as the party of fiscal prudence, of fiscal integrity. And now they are the ones who are engaged in this most imprudent act of threatening our credit rating for the first time in 220 years, for, as the gentlewoman from Connecticut said, even threatening to impeach the Secretary of the Treasury for trying to avoid that default. All year long I have heard them call themselves revolutionaries. Do you think is what they meant by revolutionary, that they are now going to become the party of fiscal imprudence and jeopardize our credit rating?

Mr. DOGGETT. So much of our discussion here this afternoon has been on what might happen in the future, and the prospects are dire, indeed. But I think it is important for the American people to understand what has already happened as of yesterday afternoon because at the same time our colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen], and I were trying to bring some sanity to this body and bring up a motion to go ahead yesterday and deal with the debt limit. Unknown to us, one of the leading credit rating agencies in the country was issuing a warning for the first time in history concerning the obligations of the U.S. Government. And I just turned to this morning's newspaper noting that, ``In a warning shot fired at Washington, one of the Nation's leading credit rating services announced late today that it was considering lowering its ratings.'' Already, even before they take us right to the edge of that cliff and jump off in a kamikaze fashion, they have already issued this warning, and it would signal that the United States might soon have to pay more to borrow money. We have talked about Orange County, and we have talked about the United States. That is us. That is every American taxpayer. Everyone who pays taxes in these United States has a stake because we will all have to pay more money just like we are paying out billions of dollars now for the excesses of the Reagan years when he signed all those appropriations into law that escalated the Federal budget deficit.